What do you think?
Rate this book
Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism
In this little booklet, Dr. Gordon Clark illustrates the errors of liberal critics of the New Testament texts. A scholar himself, Dr. Clark has the audacity to point out that the reigning textual critics have no clothes. Their misleading footnotes, their incorrect translations, the whimsical way in which they decide what to include and what to eliminate from the Bible. All are exposed in this essay on textual criticism.
- GenresTheology
70 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1986
1 person is currently reading
32 people want to read
About the author
Gordon H. Clark
93 books54 followersGordon Haddon Clark was an American philosopher and Calvinist theologian. He was a primary advocate for the idea of presuppositional apologetics and was chairman of the Philosophy Department at Butler University for 28 years. He was an expert in pre-Socratic and ancient philosophy and was noted for his rigor in defending propositional revelation against all forms of empiricism and rationalism, in arguing that all truth is propositional and in applying the laws of logic. His system of philosophy is sometimes called Scripturalism.
The Trinty Foundation continues to publish his writings.
The Trinty Foundation continues to publish his writings.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
Read
July 23, 2011Having looked up every verse and it's Greek Variant readings mentioned, I have more to say about this book (perhaps in another media) but I think this will suffice for now.
Clark himself has admitted that he is not a textual critic (10) , that he himself is not writing to address professional scholars (38). But that does not mean Clark believe he has nothing to say about textual criticism, since textual criticism itself can be criticized on the basis of logical analysis, as Clark himself stated: "much of textual criticism cannot claim immunity from logical analysis" (11). In reviewing this book, I agree with Clark here that logical analysis of textual criticism is a legitimate endeavor, though I don't know of any textual critic who thinks that somehow textual criticism is immune from logical analysis. This book by Gordon Clark, "Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism" is itself not immune to logical criticism either and to that end I will pursue in this review.
What is the purpose of this book? Reading the opening of this book, Clark never makes it clear. Towards the middle of the book, one wonders what is the direction of this book and the big picture of what Clark is trying to criticize. Sadly, he states this most clearly towards the end, with his conclusion: "..we conclude that the type of criticism underlying the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard, and other versions is inconsistent with its own stated criteria, inconsistent in its results, and inconsistent with the objective evidence. Its method is that of unsupported aesthetic speculation. If we want to get closer to the very words of God, we must pay attention to Hodges, Farstad, Pickering and The New King James Version" (49). Chiefly, from the stated conclusion, the book's purpose is one that concern with textual criticism methodology, where the methodology of the NASB, RSV are criticized and the methods of the NKJV and scholars like Hodges and Farstad (the Majority Text school) are upheld to be be closer to the Word of God. That might be his conclusion, but does this follow from the content of the book?
He favors the school of the Majority Text championed by Zane Hodges and Farstad (39), but I wished the book would have defended why he favored this school's methodology. Rather than an exposition and defense of the Majority Text view, he praises it's proponents work and simply state them as requiring patience to work through, having over 150 entries on bibliographies (11), that these works refute detractors (11-12) are scholarly and less speculative and too complex to reproduce in the book itself (40). As Gordon Clark's other works have taught me as a younger Christian, it's one thing to assert a premise for a conclusion is true and another thing to demonstrate it!
Clark has written in this book that "If the critics are not interested in the validity of their methodology, but nonetheless make use of manuscript evidence, I would like to recommend some studies of their professional resources" (11). Though Clark does make use of manuscript evidence in this book, Clark was himself not consistent in his failure to consider the validity of his preferred method (Majority Text school), which he recommend others to do in his own book.
Readers will see Clark employing a method of counting the number of text to support a reading without consideration of the external history of the text itself. For instance, for Romans 6:16 Clark argues on the basis of 30 verses 2 manuscripts for a particular reading, but found it as an appalling inconsistencies that the adopted reading in 6:11 has a majority of textual support (for another example, see Clark's comment on Romans 8:23). Clark then takes a jibe against Textual Criticism as an "art" by straw-manning textual criticism saying "If you enjoy Rembrandt, it is Byzantine and bad; if you enjoy cubism, you are a great scholar. Aesthetics is decisive" (44). Among other things, Clark is equivocating "art". More importantly, Clark fails to understand that textual criticism is not just counting numbers of support but there is a need to weigh the evidence in light of the manuscript's history, date, family, etc. Curiously, Clark should know better, for he himself acknowledges that the weight of each manuscript testimony must be taken into consideration, when he stated that text D "is almost as bad as some American translations. Acts would do much better without it, and them" (42). For him to weigh the evidential value of text D, but then to somehow forget about evidential weight of manuscripts in other occasion is simply unfortunate.
Though Clark does not give a full explanation for the NKJV method, he does have an interesting method in his criticism of other schools. His method to support his conclusion is in criticism of the "ratings" of the critical Greek texts. He himself explained that: "the consideration of this material will go far to enhancing the reputation of the New King James Version in comparison with the Revised Standard Version and others that accept the results of Aland, Metzger and their associates" (43). A closer look reveal that Clark was rather sloppy in his stated task as well.
Actually, it seems the book was in general rather sloppily written and put together. The chapter on Romans has a section on 1 Corinthians 1:13 (45). Commenting on Revelation 13:18's textual issue he jabs against Scofield interpretation of Romans 2-3 (48-49), which is inconsistent from someone who himself acknowledge the distinction between theological versus textual problem (44-45). Sometimes Clark is sloppy by not being clear of who it is he is interacting with. For instance, concerning Luke 19:25 he mentioned that "they gave it a D rating..." (34). But who are "they" that he is talking about? Metzger in the UBS does not give the verse a D rating but an A, so it's definitely not Metzger that he's talking about. Who is the "they" Clark was referring to? Clark doesn't say, nor does he say who "they" are in the context.
Furthermore, Clark is at times somewhat belittling towards his readers, saying things like how the tough matters in the book are things for the readers to survive through the boredom of (43), or when he writes, "Overcome with fatigue the patient reader will be overjoyed to learn that Revelation now ends this study" (46). Surveying how the chapters focusing on Matthew through Revelation gets generally shorter and shorter, and how the chapter on Matthew began commenting chronologically textual issues even those that are rather minor and what Clark himself admits as trivial, it's probably ironic to say that perhaps Clark was the one who has become fatigued with the task. Clark is not to be blamed that the task is difficult, but given the shortness of time and energy, he could have been a much more wise steward of time and energy if he would have concentrated on the major textual issues instead.
Some of the problems he pointed out is legitimate. It is also fortunate to point out that Textual Critics sometimes do abandon weaker readings for the better reading over time. For instance, Clark makes a good case for "Lord" in Luke 24:3, which the Nestle text put in double-brackets to show doubt until the twenty-sixth edition when they finally are led to the conclusion of the "Lord" reading. The same can be said of Luke 24:9 and other verses. Sometimes textual critics over time improves on giving a legitimate higher rating from previous rating. One can see this if they compare Clark's complaint of bad ratings to updated editions' ratings. For instance, Clark wanted a higher rating for the inclusion of the entire verse of Luke 24:12, since it was at his time rated D, but now the UBS rates it a B. Among many other examples of the state of improvement of ratings of Clark's complaint is also 1 Corinthians 1:13 (from C rating to an A in UBS 4th Edition). The changes for the better does however bring questions concerning Clark's attack on textual criticism: Is Textual Criticism and Textual Critics in general the big boogie man that Clark has portrayed them to be?
Clark himself has admitted that he is not a textual critic (10) , that he himself is not writing to address professional scholars (38). But that does not mean Clark believe he has nothing to say about textual criticism, since textual criticism itself can be criticized on the basis of logical analysis, as Clark himself stated: "much of textual criticism cannot claim immunity from logical analysis" (11). In reviewing this book, I agree with Clark here that logical analysis of textual criticism is a legitimate endeavor, though I don't know of any textual critic who thinks that somehow textual criticism is immune from logical analysis. This book by Gordon Clark, "Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism" is itself not immune to logical criticism either and to that end I will pursue in this review.
What is the purpose of this book? Reading the opening of this book, Clark never makes it clear. Towards the middle of the book, one wonders what is the direction of this book and the big picture of what Clark is trying to criticize. Sadly, he states this most clearly towards the end, with his conclusion: "..we conclude that the type of criticism underlying the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard, and other versions is inconsistent with its own stated criteria, inconsistent in its results, and inconsistent with the objective evidence. Its method is that of unsupported aesthetic speculation. If we want to get closer to the very words of God, we must pay attention to Hodges, Farstad, Pickering and The New King James Version" (49). Chiefly, from the stated conclusion, the book's purpose is one that concern with textual criticism methodology, where the methodology of the NASB, RSV are criticized and the methods of the NKJV and scholars like Hodges and Farstad (the Majority Text school) are upheld to be be closer to the Word of God. That might be his conclusion, but does this follow from the content of the book?
He favors the school of the Majority Text championed by Zane Hodges and Farstad (39), but I wished the book would have defended why he favored this school's methodology. Rather than an exposition and defense of the Majority Text view, he praises it's proponents work and simply state them as requiring patience to work through, having over 150 entries on bibliographies (11), that these works refute detractors (11-12) are scholarly and less speculative and too complex to reproduce in the book itself (40). As Gordon Clark's other works have taught me as a younger Christian, it's one thing to assert a premise for a conclusion is true and another thing to demonstrate it!
Clark has written in this book that "If the critics are not interested in the validity of their methodology, but nonetheless make use of manuscript evidence, I would like to recommend some studies of their professional resources" (11). Though Clark does make use of manuscript evidence in this book, Clark was himself not consistent in his failure to consider the validity of his preferred method (Majority Text school), which he recommend others to do in his own book.
Readers will see Clark employing a method of counting the number of text to support a reading without consideration of the external history of the text itself. For instance, for Romans 6:16 Clark argues on the basis of 30 verses 2 manuscripts for a particular reading, but found it as an appalling inconsistencies that the adopted reading in 6:11 has a majority of textual support (for another example, see Clark's comment on Romans 8:23). Clark then takes a jibe against Textual Criticism as an "art" by straw-manning textual criticism saying "If you enjoy Rembrandt, it is Byzantine and bad; if you enjoy cubism, you are a great scholar. Aesthetics is decisive" (44). Among other things, Clark is equivocating "art". More importantly, Clark fails to understand that textual criticism is not just counting numbers of support but there is a need to weigh the evidence in light of the manuscript's history, date, family, etc. Curiously, Clark should know better, for he himself acknowledges that the weight of each manuscript testimony must be taken into consideration, when he stated that text D "is almost as bad as some American translations. Acts would do much better without it, and them" (42). For him to weigh the evidential value of text D, but then to somehow forget about evidential weight of manuscripts in other occasion is simply unfortunate.
Though Clark does not give a full explanation for the NKJV method, he does have an interesting method in his criticism of other schools. His method to support his conclusion is in criticism of the "ratings" of the critical Greek texts. He himself explained that: "the consideration of this material will go far to enhancing the reputation of the New King James Version in comparison with the Revised Standard Version and others that accept the results of Aland, Metzger and their associates" (43). A closer look reveal that Clark was rather sloppy in his stated task as well.
Actually, it seems the book was in general rather sloppily written and put together. The chapter on Romans has a section on 1 Corinthians 1:13 (45). Commenting on Revelation 13:18's textual issue he jabs against Scofield interpretation of Romans 2-3 (48-49), which is inconsistent from someone who himself acknowledge the distinction between theological versus textual problem (44-45). Sometimes Clark is sloppy by not being clear of who it is he is interacting with. For instance, concerning Luke 19:25 he mentioned that "they gave it a D rating..." (34). But who are "they" that he is talking about? Metzger in the UBS does not give the verse a D rating but an A, so it's definitely not Metzger that he's talking about. Who is the "they" Clark was referring to? Clark doesn't say, nor does he say who "they" are in the context.
Furthermore, Clark is at times somewhat belittling towards his readers, saying things like how the tough matters in the book are things for the readers to survive through the boredom of (43), or when he writes, "Overcome with fatigue the patient reader will be overjoyed to learn that Revelation now ends this study" (46). Surveying how the chapters focusing on Matthew through Revelation gets generally shorter and shorter, and how the chapter on Matthew began commenting chronologically textual issues even those that are rather minor and what Clark himself admits as trivial, it's probably ironic to say that perhaps Clark was the one who has become fatigued with the task. Clark is not to be blamed that the task is difficult, but given the shortness of time and energy, he could have been a much more wise steward of time and energy if he would have concentrated on the major textual issues instead.
Some of the problems he pointed out is legitimate. It is also fortunate to point out that Textual Critics sometimes do abandon weaker readings for the better reading over time. For instance, Clark makes a good case for "Lord" in Luke 24:3, which the Nestle text put in double-brackets to show doubt until the twenty-sixth edition when they finally are led to the conclusion of the "Lord" reading. The same can be said of Luke 24:9 and other verses. Sometimes textual critics over time improves on giving a legitimate higher rating from previous rating. One can see this if they compare Clark's complaint of bad ratings to updated editions' ratings. For instance, Clark wanted a higher rating for the inclusion of the entire verse of Luke 24:12, since it was at his time rated D, but now the UBS rates it a B. Among many other examples of the state of improvement of ratings of Clark's complaint is also 1 Corinthians 1:13 (from C rating to an A in UBS 4th Edition). The changes for the better does however bring questions concerning Clark's attack on textual criticism: Is Textual Criticism and Textual Critics in general the big boogie man that Clark has portrayed them to be?
July 18, 2024
A FAMED CALVINIST PHILOSOPHER/APOLOGIST LOOKS AT NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM
Gordon Haddon Clark (1902-1985) was an American philosopher and Calvinist theologian, who was chairman of the Philosophy Department at Butler University for 28 years. He wrote many books, such as 'A Christian View of Men and Things,' 'Thales to Dewey, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy,' 'Religion, Reason and Revelation,'' God and Evil: The Problem Solved,' 'God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics,' etc.
He wrote in the Introduction to this book, "The problem of New Testament textual criticism is very difficult, and therefore hard to explain to the general public... Yet its importance and ramifications are such that the ordinary worshipper as he sits in church on Sunday mornings, or as he reads his Bible at home, cannot escape its effects... different translations confuse the ordinary reader at several places. Can he find a basis for making an intelligent choice? Without guaranteeing infallibility, I think he can, sometimes."
He asserts that "the argument that pits weight against number, if it were to have much force, would require a far more extensive knowledge of manuscript genealogies than anyone now has." (Pg. 15)
He (somewhat surprisingly) declines to discuss the last verses of Mark's gospel, as "Unfortunately it is too complicated for the present purpose. But... those interested should read John W. Burgon's 'The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark'... I am well aware of how greatly the modern critics despise him, but he seems to me to do a more thorough job than the critics usually do." (Pg. 29) He admits, however, that "no one should hold the King James Version is the infallible autograph." Citing a KJV contradiction between 2 Samuel 6:23 and 21:8, he says, "For once the Revised Standard Version can be complimented for removing the contradiction." (Pg. 37)
He states, "The various difficulties in Revelation are so numerous and so enormous that an elementary study such as this could be immediately excused from considering any one of them... At any rate 666 (in Rev 13:18) designates a man, and the verse virtually implies that John's first century readers know that man... Who then can fit the two numbers, 666 and 616? The answer is easy. The evil emperor's name was spelled in two ways: Nero and Neron." (Pg. 47-48)
Clark's arguments, while not particularly original, are nevertheless interesting, and useful for conservative students studying NT textual criticism.
Gordon Haddon Clark (1902-1985) was an American philosopher and Calvinist theologian, who was chairman of the Philosophy Department at Butler University for 28 years. He wrote many books, such as 'A Christian View of Men and Things,' 'Thales to Dewey, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy,' 'Religion, Reason and Revelation,'' God and Evil: The Problem Solved,' 'God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics,' etc.
He wrote in the Introduction to this book, "The problem of New Testament textual criticism is very difficult, and therefore hard to explain to the general public... Yet its importance and ramifications are such that the ordinary worshipper as he sits in church on Sunday mornings, or as he reads his Bible at home, cannot escape its effects... different translations confuse the ordinary reader at several places. Can he find a basis for making an intelligent choice? Without guaranteeing infallibility, I think he can, sometimes."
He asserts that "the argument that pits weight against number, if it were to have much force, would require a far more extensive knowledge of manuscript genealogies than anyone now has." (Pg. 15)
He (somewhat surprisingly) declines to discuss the last verses of Mark's gospel, as "Unfortunately it is too complicated for the present purpose. But... those interested should read John W. Burgon's 'The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark'... I am well aware of how greatly the modern critics despise him, but he seems to me to do a more thorough job than the critics usually do." (Pg. 29) He admits, however, that "no one should hold the King James Version is the infallible autograph." Citing a KJV contradiction between 2 Samuel 6:23 and 21:8, he says, "For once the Revised Standard Version can be complimented for removing the contradiction." (Pg. 37)
He states, "The various difficulties in Revelation are so numerous and so enormous that an elementary study such as this could be immediately excused from considering any one of them... At any rate 666 (in Rev 13:18) designates a man, and the verse virtually implies that John's first century readers know that man... Who then can fit the two numbers, 666 and 616? The answer is easy. The evil emperor's name was spelled in two ways: Nero and Neron." (Pg. 47-48)
Clark's arguments, while not particularly original, are nevertheless interesting, and useful for conservative students studying NT textual criticism.
December 2, 2023
A great, short and straightforward summary of issues with the critical text.
Read
August 25, 2024Included in Clark’s commentaries on Paul’s letters:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
April 13, 2012
While not a textual critic (but a strong logician), Clark demonstrates the fallacies and arbitrary nature of most contemporary textual philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews